Sophie: A Murder in West Cork - Netflix.

jimwallace197

So the people who think Bailey did it, is this what you think happened? He called over horny after a feed of pints (probably wouldnt have even been able to get it up but nevertheless), starts reciting poetry outside her house to charm her, then she tells him to f**k off, he hits her, drags her down to the gate, then kills her in the most violent way imaginable rather than hiding the body and buying himself a considerable amount of time OR he wanders over there in the middle of the night or morning, she somehow spots him down at the gate, runs down(even though this is highly unusual behaviour for a woman alone in a foreign country), he makes a move on her, she rejects, then he proceeds to kill her and then in his drunken haze, washes himself down by the local bridge & heads off home to make his partner a cuppa & then report on said crime a few hours later. 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119667346#Comment_119667346

I wonder if he saw her in town the day she was in MF's shop

Maybe he spoke to her. That no one admitted seeing them maybe people not wanting to be involved

Ms Robini

That’s not accurate; there is evidence that Bailey got into bed naked / semi-naked beside a sleeping young woman who was staying overnight and who was being put up in a bed in the studio up the road from Jules’ house, a Ms Colette Gallagher. When she woke up, he had his hands on her. Jules walked in at that point asking something to the effect of why she was in bed with Ian. The young woman was terrified (understandably) and ran out of there back to Jules’ house. In a statement about the assault, the young woman said Jules then joined her in the house and lifted her clothing to say that Bailey had done worse to her, indicating bruising on her body.

flanna01

A previous post suggests that Bailey and Sophie had met several times...?

Really..?

And did no witness come forward over the years to verify these meetings?

One of the stumbling blocks for the investigation (witch hunt), was that they couldn't put Bailey and Sophie together at any time.

Bailey is adamant he never met Sophie... To make such a statement, he had to be certain nobody seen them if he had... What are the chances of that?

So... Where are all the people that witnessed their meeting? Their statements would have been like gold dust back in the day... Even save the Guards from offering money, drugs and clothes to the weasels that tried to help stitch him up.

Very strange...

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668333#Comment_119668333

It all revolved around Alfie being 90% sure he introduced Sophie to Bailey, and leo Bolger corroborating this story.

Would these two have a vested interest here? and maybe colluded in the days immediately after the murder?

Ms Robini

Mark McCarthy gave statements indicating he saw them speaking to one another at the festival in Cape Clear.

Alfie Lyons gave statements that he remembered introducing them and gave evidence under oath that he was 90% certain he introduced them. People make a lot of that not being very strong evidence - however, taken together with other statements it adds to the evidence that they were known to each other.

In or about the time of the murder, the suspect told numerous people that he knew Sophie.

Guy Girard has also provided statements (and travelled to Ireland to do so) indicating Sophie spoke to him about Ian Bailey and the thrust of that conversation indicated Bailey was known to Sophie.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668382#Comment_119668382

Is that in Foster's book?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668382#Comment_119668382

This is all rubbish quality evidence.

We are supposed to believe that Mark McCarthy remembered the face of a woman he didnt know from a festival a year and a half before the murder...

https://www.thesun.ie/news/irish-news/8189461/sophie-toscan-plantier-murder-ian-bailey-comment-claims-met/amp/

The rest of the claims are as dubious for one reason or another. Bailey may well have been briefly introduced to Sophie when gardening... or he may not. Alfie wasnt sure yet somehow Leo Bolger remembers it better than Alfie. Some memory he has to remember two people being introduced to each other briefly in a garden. A totally unmemorable event.

The rest of the claims are all dubious for one reason or another.

Ms Robini

What they are is evidence - put it all together and what you have is several people - across two jurisdictions - all giving evidence that indicates the victim and the suspect were known to each other. You insult Leo Bolger but your insults can’t undo what he saw or his statements of what he saw. Mark McCarthy was clear in his statements, and unambiguous: he recognised Sophie as being the woman he had seen Bailey speaking to. She was quite distinctive in appearance - Mark McCarthy’s statements are coherent and consistent.

For a person to believe Bailey did not know Sophie, they would need to disregard the statements of Mark McCarthy, Leo Bolger, Alfie Lyons and Guy Girard, to say the least - that ‘they can’t all be wrong’ is a cliché but it is also beyond any reasonable doubt the case here.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668590#Comment_119668590

We also have a high profile murder trial. It can inspire strange things to occur in human memory, in multiple people and times.

So yes they can be all wrong or rather not all right. They arent even describing the same event. To suggest it is beyond reasonable doubt is mere special pleading.

Eye witness statements from actual incidences are notoriously unreliable.

So to believe someone recalls the face of someone he didnt know but saw briefly at a festival... when they are murdered a year and a half later?

How do you have all this information on how certain / clear / coherent these statements were?

Can we have some more examples of this persons memory working so well?

Ditto for Leo Bolger recalling a distinctly unmemorable introduction by person A of person B to person C.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668590#Comment_119668590

Also journalist Dick Cross of the Irish Independent, Irish Independent picture editor Padraig Beirne and freelance photographer Mike MacSweeney say Bailey offered them shots of the crime scene. How would all three be mistaken

Ms Robini

For your point to be valid, all these witnesses would have to be mistaken/lying. Put all of that evidence together and what you have is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew each other. Of course a defendant would seek to rubbish the evidence, like you are trying to do here, that’s their right. But the theory they’re all wrong doesn’t hold up…

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668812#Comment_119668812

It is strong circumstancial evidence .

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668976#Comment_119668976

it is ,and Baileys supporters on here have to cite all sorts of excuses/motives against the witnesses for every facet of the case that point to his guilt.Ordinary witnesses get maligned/dismissed at the first sign that Bailey may be compromised by a lie.The witnesses were coerced by the guards,They disliked Bailey so decided to stitch him up for a murder,seriously ,How could they remember,They mis- interpreted his obvious black humour,go through the thread and its everywhere.It the witness account cannot be proven to be incorrect its always the same ,attack the messenger.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668812#Comment_119668812

If you put a lot of garbage evidence together you still have garbage evidence.

Noted that you were unable to respond to my questions re: Mark McCarthy and Leo Bolger miraculous memories. That's why I'm calling it garbage evidence and when you are unable to defend it, it's absurd to talk of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

For all we know, Ian did chat briefly to Sophie at the festival, along with chatting to a hundred other people than night, after many pints, and didn't remember it.

Or several years before the murder, Alfie could have briefly introduced the two of them while Bailey was doing gardening work.

Do you remember everyone you have been briefly introduced to over the years? Count up the number of people Bailey would have come across in that timespan.

Some of them could be lying (Leo Bolger), some of them correct but unsure (Alfie), some of them misremembering (Mark McCarthy, Girard).

None of it amounts to real incriminating evidence against Bailey in a murder.

Gussie Scrotch

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119669560#Comment_119669560

quite right.

The Bailey theory is built on sand.

Without one or more concrete pillars - evidence of a relationship, a motive and /or evidence of his presence at the murder scene, it collapses every time. Hence the reliance on tenuous circumstantial evidence, hearsay, his reputation etc. This was illustrated clearly in the DPP's analysis of the evidence presented.

Motive is key, Sophie was killed for a reason. The belief among those who are convinced of his guilt is that his motive was sexual ie. rejection of sexual advances leading to the attack. And, frankly, that's the only motive he could, realistically, have had.

But there is no evidence of a sexual angle. And no evidence of Bailey ever being sexually violent.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119669094#Comment_119669094

They don't understand how circumstantial evidence works and how it builds. Some think they are experts in psychology and memory and some.go all the way psychic mind-reading and can see inside baileys mind and know his motives or lack thereof.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668590#Comment_119668590

But how reliable are these witness's you mention:

• Leo Bolger rented land from Sophie - There had been disputes between them re horses on land etc. He was also later convicted of growing large amounts of cannabis - this sideline business he had going was very probably going on at the same time as Sophies death. He very well could have had his own reasons for wanting to deflect attention towards Bailey.
• Mark McCarthy was a young guy who remembered he seen Ian Bailey talk to a petite blond woman at some festival or other the year before Sophie died. Mark had never met Sophie Toscan Du Plantier or heard of her until her death. He wasnt near this alleged conversation and couldnt confirm the woman spoke with a foreign accent. There are alot of other petite blond women in the country so how could he know for sure that this person was Sophie. Although Sophie has been heralded as a beauty by the media, I dont think she would have stood out in a crowd. Her look was quite plain and she would have just blended in - there was nothing distinctive about her. There is no way Mark could confirm that this petit blond woman was Sophie.
• Guy Girard remembered his important bit of information in 1999 - 3 years after the murder. Conveniently he remembered this when Bailey was chief suspect (in fact the only suspect) so I think you can see the problem here yourself.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119669825#Comment_119669825

Well do you not think if Bailey was trialed for the murder that all this wouldnt be bought up - the lack of evidence, lack of motive, unreliable witness's, personal grievances, dodgy gardai practices etc. Of course the psychology of all this would be questionned!!!!

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119669964#Comment_119669964

Leo Bolger received a suspiciously light suspended sentence for what was described as "running the most sophisticated Cannabis industry run in Cork."

But apparently it is an insult to him to question his evidence against Bailey!

Laughable stuff.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119667508#Comment_119667508

I wouldn't separate users here who believe Bailey did it from those who believe he didn't do it. I would still keep this as open as possible. I would treat Bailey as a suspect like all the other theories. the hired hitman, Alfie and Shirley, a corrupt Guard, somebody into drug trafficking, etc...

Regarding Bailey why do most of us continue to assume that Bailey's motive was sexual? There is absolutely no evidence for this. He wasn't chasing after other women in the area, he wasn't cheating on Jules as far as we know, he had no reputation as a womanizer. ( and people would have talked about that one in this area of Ireland) Other than sexual, could Bailey still have had another motive we all don't know about? And if so what motive? What could it have been, other than sexual?

I also don't think that Bailey did it, but again there is a large amount of time at night, where he clearly has no alibi at all. And then he was burning something at the back of the studio, clothes, etc? Also the article he wrote and the deadline he had for the paper he was writing for, he could easily have written that before that night.

So it's hard to completely eliminate him as a suspect, even though a long hike at night to Sophie's and back after a couple or more than a couple of drinks in a pub sound unlikely he did it. It's also hard for me to imagine that Bailey would forge a plan in his mind on how to kill Sophie whilst having a fun night out in the pub.

The only thing that I would state with utter certainty is that the murder was about Sophie. It wasn't a random act. The killer went to Sophie's planned, as Sophie wasn't at that house year round, only a few weeks every year, so the killer must have known she was home. It wasn't a hate crime against women in the film producing industry, or against a foreigner buying a house and not being welcome. The murderer knew that Sophie was at home that night or early morning, the murderer visited her to talk to her, to convince her to refrain from doing something, or to prevent and stop Sophie from doing or saying something forever by killing her.

The other strong certainty I would have about this case is that the length of corruption the Guards went, it would certainly point to a local Guard with some rank in the force, with some insight into evidence collection and how and where it was stored. If there was say a hitman hired by Sophie's ex husband, would the police have gone to the same length of corruption? Or suppose Alfie was muscling in on some drug deal with a couple of locals, and then was coerced into killing her? If they Guards would have had any hints on this, they would never have gone to that length of corruption and coercion of witnesses.

I also don't think that the Guards started to reopen the case for Bailey's sake, I'd say the motivation was to try to rectify things or attempt to clear the Garda reputation. So far there were no results, no new DNA evidence, nothing from the trip to Paris, so I'd say, that's also a dead end.

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119670050#Comment_119670050

It would go the same way the libel trial went. They would bring in a large number of witnesses who when they testified at the libel trial contradicted Bailey`s testimony and made a huge impact because they were utterly convincing, just as the various witnesses in the docs and on the podcast were. So, on the one hand you would have Bailey and Marie who clearly lied at different periods in the intervening years because they have contradicted their own statements and on the other side perhaps as many as thirty witnesses, perhaps more, whose versions of events have never wavered.

elacsap

Can I ask just one question please?

Is it the guard's position that Bailey went to Sophie's house on foot - i.e. why is the idea of him driving there seemingly not being floated?

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119670294#Comment_119670294

It`s an open question that I would think it depends on whether you believe the Kealfada sighting or not. If you believe what Marie initially said, then you could conclude that he walked over there and went down to Kealfada to try to clean up and dump the murder weapon. Marie`s man didn`t have a rhythm stick with him for example. I think there is every possibility he drove over there.

yourdeadwright

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668382#Comment_119668382

Alfie Lyons should e more of a suspect than Ian to be honest

tibruit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119670105#Comment_119670105

Was that before or after he made the statement?

flanna01

Leo Bolger seen then together... (Notorius weasel & guard puppet)

Alfie Lyons 90% sure he introduced them.... (Either you introduced them or you didn't?)

Some other dude recalls them together a year and a half later..... (Go way you moron....)

See where this is going........

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119670294#Comment_119670294

It would appear so.

But in my opinion, IF, IB went to the house that night, then surely he would have driven.

robwen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119668382#Comment_119668382

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20312553.html

He don't help himself

Ms Robini

You say there is no evidence that Bailey was ‘sexually violent’. On the night of a house party at Jules’s house when a young woman was staying the night in the studio house, Bailey got into the bed where the young woman was sleeping (a Ms Colette Gallagher). She woke to find his hands on her. He was naked/semi naked. Jules came into the room and at that point the lady ran out of the studio and back to Jules’s house. She was terrified. I would see that as far, far beyond inappropriate and squarely in the realm of sexual violence - to get into bed beside a sleeping woman who is not your partner (she was a relative stranger and they had barely spoken at the party that night) and who - given she was asleep - had not consented to being touched. Would you agree?

The attack on Sophie closely resembled the attack on Jules earlier in 1996 - concentrated on the head and face; similar maxilofacial injuries; similar tear in the same part of the lip area; brute force; excessive force; significant blood loss etc…

it is offensive to argue that Bailey does not have a history of sexual violence given his history of violence towards women, including the assault on Colette Gallagher.